Advertisement

Report on Germany

  • Benjamin VogelEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law book series (LSCL, volume 2)

Abstract

German constitutional jurisprudence emphasizes a close link between the truth-finding purpose of the criminal trial and the presence of the accused. As the latter’s individual culpability is of key importance to the imposition of criminal sanctions, procedural law attaches great value to the defendant’s presence at the trial, laying down both a right and a duty to this effect. It is only for crimes of minor severity that a sanction can be imposed without giving the defendant the opportunity to personally comment on the charges before a judge in advance—and even then, he or she can demand a subsequent trial. In any case, the defendant must have the opportunity to comment on the charges in an oral hearing. Furthermore, as the trial serves to ascertain the truth in the best possible way, accused persons have very limited options to waive their right to be present at trial, even after having been heard on the charges. Within narrow limits, the defendant can be temporarily removed from the trial, particularly for the purpose of maintaining order or enabling the examination of a witness. Beyond that, and with the exception of some alternative proceedings such as private prosecutions, German law broadly presupposes the personal presence of the defendant throughout the trial. In contrast, the accused’s personal participation at the pre-trial stage remains limited and is then primarily relevant for the judicial interrogation of witnesses and in judicial review proceedings against pretrial detention. The right to be present at one’s trial recently gained special significance in European Arrest Warrant proceedings following an in absentia trial in the requesting state where the convicted person had not unequivocally waived the right to be present. The Federal Constitutional Court stipulates special requirements in this regard in order to ensure that the right to a retrial in the requesting state is effective.

Keywords

Criminal law Criminal proceedings Participatory rights In absentia trials Inaudito reo procedures European arrest warrant 

Abbreviations

AICCM

Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters

BeckRS

Beck online case law report

BGHSt

Decisions of the Federal High Court (criminal matters)

BT-Drucks.

Parliamentary documents of the Bundestag

BVerfGE

Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court

CC

German Criminal Code (StGB)

CCP

German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO)

CJEU

Court of Justice of the European Union

ECHR

European Convention of Human Rights

ECtHR

European Court of Human Rights

NJW

Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (journal)

NStZ

Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (journal)

NStZ-RR

NStZ case law report

OLG

Oberlandesgericht

RhPfVerfGH

Constitutional Court of Rhineland-Palatinate

References

  1. Arnoldi O (2012) Anmerkungen zu BGH. NStZ, 105, ibid, p 108Google Scholar
  2. Beulke W (2012) Strafprozessrecht, 12th ednGoogle Scholar
  3. Böhm KM (2015) Die strafrechtliche Abwesenheitsverhandlung im Berufungsverfahren. NJW, p 3132Google Scholar
  4. Böhm KM (2017) Aktuelle Entwicklungen im Auslieferungsrecht. NStZ, p 77Google Scholar
  5. Börner R (2005) Die Vermögensbeschlagnahme nach §§ 290 ff. StPO. NStZ, p 547Google Scholar
  6. Christl E (2014) Europäische Mindeststandards für Beschuldigtenrechte – Zur Umsetzung der EU-Richtlinien über Sprachmittlung und Informationen im Strafverfahren. NStZ, p 376Google Scholar
  7. Deiters M (2015) In: Albrecht AH et al (eds) Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, vol 4, 5th edn. §§ 198–246, StPOGoogle Scholar
  8. Diemer H (2013) In: Hannisch R (ed) Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 7th ednGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisenberg U (1993) Straf(verfahrens-)rechtliche Maßnahmen gegenüber “Organisiertem Verbrechen”. NJW, p 1033Google Scholar
  10. Eisenberg U (2012) Sich-Entfernen bzw. Fernbleiben während der Hauptverhandlung. NStZ, p 63Google Scholar
  11. Erb V (2010) Anmerkungen zu BGH. NStZ, 162, ibid, p 347Google Scholar
  12. Fezer G (2011) Anmerkungen zu BGH. NStZ, 47, ibidGoogle Scholar
  13. Frisch W (2015) Verwerfung der Berufung ohne Sachverhandlung und Recht auf Verteidigung – Zur Änderung des § 329 StPO. NStZ, p 69Google Scholar
  14. Frister H (2016) in: Albrecht AH et al (eds) Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, vol. 5, 5th edn., §§ 246a–295, StPO.Google Scholar
  15. Gerst HJ (2013) Die Konventionsgarantie des Art. 6 III c und die Abwesenheitsverwerfung gemäß § 329 I 1 StPO – Ein kleiner Schritt für Straßburg, ein zu großer für Deutschland?. NStZ, p 310Google Scholar
  16. Gmel D (2013) In: Hannisch R (ed) Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 7th ednGoogle Scholar
  17. Güntge GF (2015) In: Ambos K, König S, Rackow P (eds) Rechtshilferecht in StrafsachenGoogle Scholar
  18. Köberer W (2015) In: Ambos K, König S, Rackow P (eds) Rechtshilferecht in StrafsachenGoogle Scholar
  19. Lagodny O (2012) In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T (eds) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 5th ednGoogle Scholar
  20. Laue C (2010) Die Hauptverhandlung ohne den Angeklagten. JA, p 294Google Scholar
  21. Leipold K (2005) Die Videovernehmung. NJW-Spezial, p 471Google Scholar
  22. Metz J (2017) Entfernung des Angeklagten nach § 247 StPO. NStZ, p 446Google Scholar
  23. Meyer-Goßner L (2016) In: Meyer-Goßner L, Schmitt B (eds) Strafprozessordnung, 59th ednGoogle Scholar
  24. Roxin C, Schünemann B (2014) Strafverfahrensrecht, 28th ednGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruggeri S (2016) Right to personal participation in criminal proceedings and in absentia procedures in the EU area of freedom, security and justice. ZStW, p 578Google Scholar
  26. Safferling C (2014) Der EuGH, die Grundrechtecharta und das nationale Recht: Die Fälle Akerberg Fransson und Melloni. NStZ, p 545Google Scholar
  27. Sauer H (2016) “Solange” geht in Altersteilzeit – Der unbedingte Vorrang der Menschenwürde vor dem Unionsrecht. NJW, p 1134Google Scholar
  28. Schmitt B (2016) In: Meyer-Goßner L, Schmitt B (eds) Strafprozessordnung, 59th ednGoogle Scholar
  29. Thörnich D (2017) Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK und der unerreichbare (Auslands-)Zeuge: Appell zur Stärkung des Konfrontationsrechts bei präjudizierender Zeugenvernehmung im Ermittlungsverfahren. ZIS, p 39Google Scholar
  30. Trüg G (2011) Anmerkungen zu BGH. NJW, 3249, ibid, p 3256Google Scholar
  31. Wahl T (2016) In: Sieber U, von zur Mühlen N (eds) Access to telecommunication data in criminal justiceGoogle Scholar
  32. Widmaier G (1998) Anmerkungen zu BGH. NStZ, p 263, ibidGoogle Scholar
  33. Zehetgruber C (2013) Zur Unvereinbarkeit von § 329 Abs. 1 S. 1 StPO mit der EMRK. HRRS, p 397Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal LawFreiburg im BreisgauGermany

Personalised recommendations